A comparative study of different surgical techniques for the management of distal ureter during laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy. / Estudio comparativo de diferentes técnicas quirúrgicas para el manejo del uréter distal durante la nefroureterectomía laparoscópica.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the oncological outcomes between two open surgical techniques and two endoscopic approaches for the management of the distal ureter during laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy (LRNU). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective review of 152 patients submitted to LRNU for the management of upper urinary tract tumors between 2007-2014. We analyzed the potential impact of two different open surgical (extravesical vs intravesical) and two endoscopic (resection of ureteral orifice and fragment removal vs endoscopic bladder cuff) techniques on the development of bladder recurrence, distant/local recurrence and cancer-specific survival (CSS). RESULTS: A total of 152 patients with a mean age of 69.9 years (±10.1) underwent LRNU. We reported 62 pTa-T1 (41%), 35 pT2 (23%) and 55 pT3-4 (36%). Thirty-two were low grade (21.1%) and 120 high grade (78.9%). An endoscopic approach was performed in 89 cases (58.5%), 32 with resection (36%) and 57 with bladder cuff (64%), and open approach in 63 (41.5%), 42 intravesical (66.7%) and 21 extravesical (33.3%). Within a median follow-up of 32 months (3-120), 38 patients (25%) developed bladder recurrence, 42 distant/local recurrence (27.6%) and 34 died of tumor (22.4%). In the univariate analysis, the type of endoscopic technique was not related to bladder recurrence (P=.961), distant/local recurrence (P=.955) nor CSS (P=.802). The open extravesical approach was not related to bladder recurrence (P=.12) but increased distant/local recurrence (P=.045) and decreased CSS (P=.034) compared to intravesical approach. CONCLUSIONS: LRNU outcomes are not dependant on the type of endoscopic approach performed. The open extravesical approach is a more difficult technique and could worsen the oncological outcomes when compared to the intravesical.

Office stent placement under local anesthesia is a safe and efficient procedure for the management of multiple ureteral disorders. / La colocación de catéteres doble J con anestesia local en régimen ambulatorio es un procedimiento seguro y eficiente para el manejo de distintas patologías ureterales.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcomes of ureteral stent placement under local anesthesia for the management of multiple ureteral disorders. METHODS: Retrospective study of 45 consecutive ureteral stents placed under local anesthesia from January 2015 to July 2016. Inclusion criteria were hemodynamically stable patients with urinary obstruction, urinary fistula or for prophylactic ureteral localization during surgery. Five minutes before the procedure, 10ml of lidocaine gel and 50ml of lidocaine solution were instilled in the bladder. A 4.8Fr ureteral stent was placed using a 15.5Fr flexible cystoscope under fluoroscopic control. Characteristics of procedures and outcomes were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 45 procedures (33 placement, 12 replacements) were attempted in 37 patients, of which 40 (89%) were successful. There were 10 male (27%) and 27 female patients (73%) with a mean age of 58.6 years (±17.5). Main indications for stent placement were stones (37.8%), extrinsic ureteral compression (28.9%) and surgery ureteral localization (22.2%). The reasons for failing to complete a procedure were the inability to pass the guidewire/stent in 4 cases (8.8%) or to identify the ureteral orifice in 1 (2.2%). Postoperative complications occurred in 8 patients (17.8%) (7 Clavien I, 1 Clavien IIIa). No procedure was prematurely terminated due to pain. Statistical analysis did not find significant successful predictors. The outpatient setting provided a fourfold cost decrease. CONCLUSIONS: Ureteral stent placement can be safely and effectively performed under local anesthesia in the office cystoscopy room. This procedure could free operating room time, reduce costs and minimize side effects of general anesthesia.